ado_testsuites_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned, which informs the agent about the output structure. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond what the schema states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, return fields are listed clearly, and the cross-reference to ado_testplans_list is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list operation with complete schema documentation and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, what it returns, and how to obtain the required plan ID. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (planId, top, project) are documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions plan IDs indirectly. Hence, the score aligns with the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List all suites') and the resource ('a test plan'), and specifies the return fields (ID, name, type, state, test case count, parent suite ID). It distinguishes itself from the sibling ado_testplans_list by explicitly pointing to that tool for finding plan IDs, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use ado_testplans_list to find plan IDs.' This guides the agent on how to obtain a required parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., ado_testcases_list) or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.